Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

I don't like Apple that much, but they've done way more than Google ever has. Apple have been experts at user-friendly integration: remember, after all, that the user of their products - unlike in Google's case - is also the customer. If you want an idea of what happens when Google is left to design something, you only have to look at Google+ or... well... yes, Google Glass.

Google's only innovation of interest has been their PageRank algorithm. Everything since then has been a bought-out or an also-ran.

The iPhone UI was rather good, and was Apple's last showing of what it did really well.

A fact that is only emphasised by the fact that Google redesigned their phones and the Android UI from aping BlackBerry to aping the iPhone and it's OS [pcworld.com]. I'm not sure the iPhone and it's UI is the last time Apple will demonstrate how it does UI and design very well but it is the latest.

Actually,
The original Android company had two phones in development: The sooner and The dream. The sooner was more blackberry like with a physical keyboard, the dream was well, the one you call the redesign. (first artice I found: http://bgr.com/2013/12/20/ipho... [bgr.com])
But don't let facts distract you.

As far as I know, Google hardware and combined software kind of allows me more privacy/freedom than other mobile operating systems/hardware.
I don't think it is fair to include the vast data they have when talking about how invasive they are. Other companies (even small ones) try worse things (uploading all my contacts without asking/going through sms's/selling my banking information/....).
But I grant you that we are indeed in a dead spiral when it comes to privacy.

The OS is only part of it. I am not a fanboi, but Apple does several things nicely:

-it creates reality distortion fields of billion dollar size-it has consistent build quality that reflects serious engineering feats, and vendor liaison and supply-chain discipline-it has remarkable consistency, good and bad, mostly good-they are very good at supporting their users and are very connected/focused on their users-they are masters, perhaps wizards at meme control.

The OS is very important, but that's not why they get top dollar for their goods. Their assets don't depreciate as rapidly, and they are fiendishly consistent.

Docs was at least partly based on Google's acquisition of Upstartle, though Google have added substantially to it since. It isn't that unique though. MS Office Web-apps and others offer much of the same. Gmail was developed internally, but I would argue that the main driver for success was the marketing genius of offering 1 GB storage and large attachments at at time when others had like 2MB which was constant pain-point for users. And the invite-only launch, which not only generated interest and demand, bu

If you're doing professional document editing in a browser, you're insane.

The portability, sharing and collaboration of Gdocs is light years ahead of the others. Nobody I know gives a rats ass about "professional" editing.

You have evidently never done a Bachelor's or Master's Thesis. If you had you'd be familiar with a group of people that places much importance on "professional" editing. Granted, scientists use TEX rather than an office suite but the 'professional' editing of scientific reports, thesis and papers is almost considered as important as the content and there are some very good and obvious reasons for that.

Yea, and while you may do that, and Google employees may do that... no one else does. Thats the point.

People email XLS files because Excel is light years beyond anything Google has on the drawing board. If you've got some fancy Google sheets page that you think is bad ass... congratulations, you're working with what it was like on the pre-release versions of Lotus 1-2-3. Google sheets is a joke, as is there Docs. They've got all the proprietary disadvantages of Microsoft products. NONE of the advanta

Yea, and while you may do that, and Google employees may do that... no one else does. Thats the point.

People email XLS files because Excel is light years beyond anything Google has on the drawing board. If you've got some fancy Google sheets page that you think is bad ass... congratulations, you're working with what it was like on the pre-release versions of Lotus 1-2-3. Google sheets is a joke, as is there Docs. They've got all the proprietary disadvantages of Microsoft products. NONE of the advantages, none of the years of development, and in order to use it... you have to not only pay them in one form or another, but you have to accept that they're scanning your documents and can read any data they want.

Using Google Sheets for business purposes shows a serious lack of technical knowledge.

I'm guessing you think Excel is a way to look at rows of a database in the form of a CSV, in which case... you're doing it wrong across the board.

To be precise, my clients use Excel as a way to look at/send me rows of a database in the form of a CSV.

I use spreadsheets for basic calculations, but that's all. Anything more complex usually mandates an actual program.

The only time I ever receive an XLS that uses all those gee-whiz macro features that make it different than generic-cheapo-spreadsheet is when someone has exceeded the limits of what a spreadsheet can do and they need me to convert it into an actual application. Which is generally long after

Using Google Sheets for business purposes shows a serious lack of technical knowledge.

I'm guessing you think Excel is a way to look at rows of a database in the form of a CSV, in which case... you're doing it wrong across the board.

Nonsense. Actually I was thinking in terms of sharing information and real time editing and collaboration. Those are the big advantages. We moved past that static document thing a while back.
Emailing spreadsheets or docs is 1990's technology. Its the 90's equivalent of "sneaker net" at that, for people that haven't figured out there's a better way to share information. How do you guys with all that "technical knowledge" have multiple people in multiple locations edit the same file at the same time? I hope

When I'm stuck on a complex Excel or Access issue (typically involving a complex formula or macro), most of the time there is a forum thread where someone has solved the problem already and I can learn from this and integrate it into my formula or code.

The same cannot be said of Google Docs and as my time is not free, the cost of MS Office suddenly looks a lot more appealing.

When gmail first came out (you may be too young to remember that) it was indeed interresting compared to other webmail. (they started the free space race really, before that it was very limited what you got in a free account. It is also not just web*mail)

I never use docs so cant tell if its good or not, but you cant really compare it to libreoffice/ms office - two different class of applications. most people do not think they can be used for the same work (though professionel work is fine, lots of it does f

What exactly is wrong with Google+ aside from being late to the game? It brought profile control options not seen at Facebook at the time, Hangouts (not seen on Facebook), and other features that were either improved in G+ or introduced. As for the "acquired" thing, let's not forget that nearly every single piece of technology Apple has "invented" already existed in some form or fashion in academia circles years (or decades) before Apple combined them into a single device. Google "pinch-to-zoom". Oh sorry,

I'm no fan of Apple, but they NEVER spied on people as their primary business model. Google are a fucking nest of spies, pardon my French. They once were the luminaries who pulled the world wide web from a mess of near unsearchable data into an ordered scalable whole.
Then they bought Doubleclick, and Doubleclick blackened their hearts and swallowed them whole, from the inside out. RIP Google of old, and FOAD.

If selling your search terms to advertisers were not in the business model, how much would you be willing to pay for Google? $50 a month? $100? Would you go back to 'looking things up' at libraries, as our ancestors did, or just stumbling around being wrong about basic facts most of the time?

And realistically, my own value is even less. I use search and maps daily, but I don't use google drive, or google apps, or hangouts. I watch stuff on youtube, but not daily. I have a gmail account, but don't use it much. (my android phone is connect

If selling your search terms to advertisers were not in the business model,
how much would you be willing to pay for Google? $50 a month? $100?

About 1/3rd of my internet bill, eg $20 per month. Lots of telecoms companies can survive on that amount. But given that I've been around the internet before Google even existed, I'm perfectly capable of imagining alternatives that don't require paying Google $100 to come up with products and services I don't use.

I pay less than that for 2 pairs of transitions lenses and frames! I have to have non-toridal lenses because my eyes aren't the right physical shape so the top and bottom of my lenses have different refraction compared to the left and right sides.

You're getting raped if you're paying $300 for just a single pair of lenses. Not ripped off... fucking RAPED.

No, I live in Australia where my last pair of prescription sunglasses cost a fortune, not all of which my private health fund Optical cover paid back.I very nearly went with a pair of Ray-Ban frames actually but a different shop offered me a good deal.

Most of the people in the country can walk into walmart and get two pairs of decent glasses for $100, including the optometrist fee.

Mind you, some people have problems that the guy at walmart can't help. (I had to go to the Mayo clinic and have surgery just to get back to reasonable so they could try to put glasses on me, muscles around my eye are stupid and cause it to be misshaped, but now I can go to walmart if I choose:) but for the majority of the country with only minor vision problems, $100 and le

Maybe they don't consider cheap sunglasses part of the eye wear market... OR more likely there's so many different cheap sun glass makers they're too fragmented to own any decent amount of market share.

Luxoticca not only owns a wide range of premium and "budget" eyewear brands (prescription glasses and sunglasses), they also own LensCrafters. Pearle vision, sears optical, target optical, and Sunglass Hut to name a few. Additionally they own the vision insurance company EyeMed.

Google getting in bed with Luxottica is probably about as close to being evil as I've considered from them, honestly. I don't care about the "I am a product" aspect of Google's business model, because it has never inconvenienced me and I don't feel like I have some magical nature that means I suffer for having this targeted to a profile of me that they've made. I like what Google does, it makes my life easier and even though they might not have the best usability in a lot of cases, it's acceptable.

But Luxottica are just plain bastards. Got an optical practice and want to sell Ray-Bans? Sure, just sell a bunch of crap you don't want, too. Want to have your own practice? Now you're competing with a vendor but on multiple levels. They're a bunch of monopolistic bastards, and Google just jumped into bed with the worst fucks in that industry. Thanks, Google.

Only if you are dumb and buy them at a boutique. you can get RayBan at wholesale prices all over the place. go to Shen-Wa's upscale sunglasses emporium and try them on, then go order off of amazon.com or other places that don't sell them for the 3500% markup that is MSRP

That would be 80% in terms of clear or tinted eye coverings secured by a frame resting on the nose and ears. Luxottica doesn't just own rayban. They own all the "designer" brands too. They also do the actual designing. Burberry, calvin klein, etc are all produced and designed by luxottica (albeit with some input from said brands). When Oakley resisted a luxottica buyout their stock plummeted, forcing them to sell. If I needed glasses I'd be concerned that my clear vision depends entirely on a single company

Those of us who need prescription eyewear need prescription eyewear. Are you wearing yours to read this? Imagine if you weren’t. Imagine life without your glasses for a year, a week, an hour. Yet many health insurance plans, especially for the unemployed or self-employed, don’t cover them.

The reason most individual health insurance plans don't cover them is because the only people who would pay for such insurance are those who know they need glasses. Needing glasses (for the most part) isn't something that just appears out of no where. Nobody is going to pay for insurance that includes glasses if they don't need glasses.

The same argument applies there. Insurance isn't for paying for things you know you need, it's for hedging your bets so that if something unexpected happens it doesn't render you destitute. You can't make the first kind of "insurance" work in a free society; people have to be forced to sign up, or the system goes bankrupt.

The only real problem regarding "pre-existing conditions" is that under the current system you have to maintain your insurance continuously after being diagnosed in order to receive fundin

We bought 3 pairs from Zenni Optical for just at ~$100 ($110 I think?) and we've been *very* pleased. This after paying $250 - $300 per pair year after year at the local places. Seriously, the glasses online are so cheap it's worth it even just to have a thr

I can't see a significant demographic of people wanting to spend this amount of money to wear glasses. Usability/utility is going to be a far bigger issue than any of the potential technical or social problems. Contact lenses and laser eye surgery are around because most people would rather *not* wear glasses and most people only wear their sunglasses when they need to. Glasses are simply not convenient. I have't seen any features in Glass that's going to compel the masses to want spend this kind of cash to

I wear glasses to read, I'm wearing them now. I don't need to wear glasses for anything else yet. Casting my eyes around the office, over the glasses because they are distant, I can see a fair few people in glasses. So perhaps there is a market for glasses after all. Google Glass I can't see a use for though.

Spectacles are often preferable to laser surgery and contacts if you need vision correction. No eyewear at all is still preferable for most if you need no correction, though. I'm not sure there's a huge market for frames that only exist to hold up a little screen. Frankly, if they're so committed to glasses-wearers, they should come up with a version with a universal mount and adjustable fitting to sit on ordinary frames.

That seems like the most obvious thing in the world, short of taking the idea and trans

These people control Sunglass hut. They not are able to integrate the glasses into current and future products, they are able to provide a retail channel to market and promote them. They are able to provide incentives to specifically push the products to customers. This solves a problem with the original Android phone, in which end users had no way of interacting with the physical phone. Most who bought it did so soly on the Google name.

You can never have a monopoly on a web page, at least not without the ISPs help. If someone made a better search engine I would switch immediately. It's just very hard to do that. The only barriers to entry are talent and money.

Balogna. Google has content that they have captured both themselves and from other people that they use to feed their search results. Examples include AdWords, Books and YouTube. Since those two already exist, and block competitors from getting the data, you will find it very difficult to make a search engine that comes anywhere near as close to being as good. You'll have access to public works, but not the private ones that Google has swallowed.

.... but only when they can make one with a battery that actually lasts at least 12 hours, and in a form factor that doesn't make me look like I'm trying to look like I'm from some kind of 70's version of the 21st century or something.

I wear glasses already... if they can fit the technology into a form factor that does not substantially change the appearance of what I already wear on my face, I may be interested once they can improve the battery life.

I avoid Luxottica eyewear, because they have monopolized the industry and hurt small producers. They are on a constant buying binge to buy-up any producer that might gain some traction in showrooms, and make monopolistic demands on retailers.

They make (IMO) poor-quality eyewear at inflated prices. Most of the "designer" labels they make agreements with seem to be OK with this. BTW, you should be able to get any Luxottica products on line for at least half off of retail, because the prices are so inflated. Y